Interesting/educational read but I'm still not convinced that this unintended side effect is a bad thing - it seems like a desirable property to have authenticated emails. Matt argues this might lead to regular folks (as opposed to politicians) getting blackmailed, but: 1) it seems unlikely this cryptographic proof is needed (he acknowledges this criticism in the post), and 2) what seems more likely to me is that pol…
You might want to validate your emails more than a few months out. Regardless of if your emails are valid or not, blackmail is still a crime. Not being able to have your emails validated doesn't protect you from blackmail. The power of blackmail is often in the social cost of the accusation itself. The thing that protects you from blackmail is not getting involved in things you can be blackmailed for. This is like sa…
This is incorrect, because the things that someone can be blackmailed for is not the same as the set of immoral or unethical acts. You can be blackmailed for being gay, or for having a serious medical condition that's undisclosed. Neither of those situations is a "well just don't do that" kind of thing.
The defense against blackmail is to make blackmail difficult (eg release DKIM keys), severely punish people who engage in blackmail, and guard your secrets effectively.
> This is like saying don't lock your doors so that nobody can break and enter into your house.
This is like saying the latch on your fence is a security mechanism. Nobody intended that fence latch to keep your safe or secure and hiding behind it won't make you safer. Rip away the false pretense.